If this is your first visit be sure to check out the FAQ. You have to REGISTER before you can post. To start viewing threads, select the forum that you want to visit from the list below.NOTICE: YOUR ACCESS HAS BEEN LIMITED UNTIL YOU REGISTER!

In order to ensure your registration and verification goes smoothly and quickly you should edit your user profile and add some content that verifies your not a robot. Add an avatar or profile image, add some location information, setup your signature, send the admin a quick private message, etc. You can make these changes by clicking on "Settings" in the top right corner of the site. Once inside your personal settings control panel, you can click on edit profile or any of the other options to begin your customizations.

Doing this will help the forum moderators verify your registration and allow you access to the entire forum.If you refuse to do this or take steps to verify your humanity, there is a very good chance your account will be deleted instead of verified.Users that look suspicious or have suspicious email addresses and users with no profile information will be deleted without warning.

The question isn't whether some other round is more deadly. The question is whether the 5.56 is deadly.

You say it isn't, that it's a "feeble" round when it comes to killing something as large as a person. Apparently, and contrary to much rumor, it is quite deadly.

Further comment from the same source:

Food for thought: The DC Sniper used a 5.56. All but one victim died from one shot. range was usually @50 meters – always torso shot.

Reading more between the lines of the commentary, the round loses effectiveness at a certain range (but is good to 300 m or more), doesn't PENETRATE armor or body armor so well as heavier rounds do, and doesn't go through brush and foilage in the field as well as a heavier round. It may also not be as lethal as quickly-- but it's not that people won't bleed out from massive cavitation exit wounds, they will.

There is some consensus that most issues with that round come from using a too short barrel, and that having a longer barrel is what is needed:

Comment #75 and comment #113 nailed the hammer to the head . Barrel length plays a massive and I mean MASSIVE role in the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO .M4 carbines are not adequate for engagements beyond a stone throw . Yes an m4 will kill you at mid to long range ” IF ” your shot placement is perfect … Good luck on that in combat . When the army chopped 5.5 inches off the barrel of the AR platform they also chopped the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO in half . If you want to put an attacker on its back with one shot , the m16 is your ticket … Not the m4 . I do think that the fs2k is a step in the right direction , it is a good compromise , it maintains barrel length so that the 5.56 NATO retains its potential and it still allows the rifle itself to remain compact enough for entering and exiting vehicles … Just my two cents . Adequate barrel length ( 18+ inches ) + compact ( fs2k for example ) + adequate velocity ( keeping a 5.56 NATO round above 2700 fts for as long as possible to permit long range reliable bullet fragmentaion ) + 55gr 5.56 NATO = Super deadly within 150 yards … Blows holes in a person the size of basket balls deadly … Or just stay with the m4 carbines and keep having to put 5+ rounds to a attacker before they go down … Your choice … Chose wisely .

Dec 3, 2012
8:10 pm
#152 Walt :
Saw pics brought back from nam by cuzz the tissue damage by the m16 was unbelievable 1 round takes a leg off 2 or 3 cut the body into halves made a 44 mag look like a bbgun.

The question isn't whether some other round is more deadly. The question is whether the 5.56 is deadly.

You say it isn't, that it's a "feeble" round when it comes to killing something as large as a person. Apparently, and contrary to much rumor, it is quite deadly.

It's a shame you know nearly nothing on the topic ... nor have the sense to realize it.

First off ... to break this down so even a gun nitwit can follow along ... yes, a 5.56 NATO toud can be deadly. For that matter a .22 LR can be deadly. For that matter, a thumb to the base of the throat can e deadly ... shall we ban thumbs?

But this is all rrelevant to the topic.

The point remains that if the goal is killing humans ... singularly, or in mass ... the 5.56 NATO isn't the best choice. It isn't the second best choice. It's not the third best choice. It's not the fourth best choice. It's not the fifth best choice.

To be honest ... is close quarter combat, if your goal is to kill a human, I doubt that it's as good a choice as a Louisville Slugger or a framing hammer.

But it has a flash suppressor and a pistol grip and guys carry it in made for TV movies so it's real scary looking ... and the spoonfed dembots will believe whatever they are told to believe.

If you want to kill humans with a high degree of success ... a .30-06 woud be a much better choice.

Please describe and contrast your combat experience with these rounds to the medics and Marines and sniper-qualified commenters whose replies I copied above. I will mention, as you appear to have missed it, that they disagree entirely with your assessment, so it will be interesting to learn upon what experience your disagreement is based.

It seems we already know that answer, as proposed by the OP:

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding the current M16A1, M16A2, M4, M16A4NATO 5.56 round and its effectiveness on the battlefield. Now before you make a judgment as a soldier or as a firearm enthusiast (a more euphemistic way of saying “gun nut”), consider your sources. Who is it that is telling you the 5.56mm, or .223 if you prefer, is an ineffective round? Is this source an armchair general who has watched Blackhawk Down one too many times; or a Navy Corpsman who has been attached to a MEF fighting in Fallujah and has seen, treated and inflicted these wounds with his own M-4?

Please explain how blowing basketball sized (one person said as to the M-16, fist-sized, for the M-1) exit wounds out the back side of those hit with such rounds is not lethal, and a round sufficient to cut a large dog in half will not kill a person.

Also, note that the larger amount of ammo that these lighter smaller rounds allow to be carried, and the superiority of maintaining targeting with the lighter rounds' less recoil on auto fire, also commend the rounds' performance.

Please describe and contrast your combat experience with these rounds to the medics and Marines and sniper-qualified commenters whose replies I copied above. I will mention, as you appear to have missed it, that they disagree entirely with your assessment, so it will be interesting to learn upon what experience your disagreement is based.

It seems we already know that answer, as proposed by the OP:

Please explain how blowing basketball sized (one person said as to the M-16, fist-sized, for the M-1) exit wounds out the back side of those hit with such rounds is not lethal, and a round sufficient to cut a large dog in half will not kill a person.

Also, note that the larger amount of ammo that these lighter smaller rounds allow to be carried, and the superiority of maintaining targeting with the lighter rounds' less recoil on auto fire, also commend the rounds' performance.

They aren't disputing me ... as I said, it's a shame you don't understand what is being told to you.

- The 5.56 carries 167 ft/lbs less energy than the 7.62 ... which is very nearly the max torque output of a 2013 VW Jetta 5 cylinder, which puts out 177 ft/lbs of torque.

- The 7.62 round will penetrate 26 inches in ballistic gelatin, the standard used to simulate a human torso, versus the 5.56 which will penetrate 11 inches less.

- The AR/M16 is the far superior weapon in outdoor combat because it is lighter by far, more accurate at distance by a good bit, and being a lighter projectile it does have a longer maximum range ... which means nothing in a 30 by 30 room.

- NATO itself uses te 7.62 round for up close and personal weaponry, for several reasons. Among these that the stopping power is so much higher ... and the accuracy of the AR/M16 at a distance disappears because of their raised sites which bring parallax into the equation.

7.62 AK round on left ... 5.56 NATO center ... AA battery right.

Raised AR/M16 sights, have to be high to be seen over the arry handle, top ... nearly flush AK sights bottom.

The argument that an AR/M16 can make a fugly wound does not disprove my point, it makes my point.

That the round can also be deadly is asinine ... it's a military rife for Christmas sake.

It's value in combat however are accuracy and stopping point at a distance, reliability, and being very light weight.

In close quarters combat hwever, it's an absolutely miserable choice.

Put me in such situations against an insane shooter, and I'll take my Sig P228 ... yes, I realize none of you know what that is ... 9MM with a 10 round and take my chances.

In fact, in that scenario, I'll take my chances with the claw hammer. My mobility and accuracy is far better ... and if he hits me it robably won't be fatal, at east not instantly. If I get a hit on him ... he'll likely never be troube again.

That's a long way around to refuse to admit you have no combat experience with this round, let alone nothing to compare with these men's experiences.

You could have just admitted that no one you ever shot with a 5.56 round ever survived.

You could have just admitted that your experience with 5.56 round wounds in combat as a rifleman or a medic was zero.

You took way too many words to fail to admit anything, or answer a single one of the questions asked of you.

You know what? An artillery shell, or the shell from one of the old naval vessels' 17 or 19 inch guns makes the AK round look like a airgun pellet. The biggest naval guns fired something about half the weight of a Volkswagen. None of which would make their .50 caliber machine gun rounds 'feeble.'

The OP nailed you-- armchair general, gun hobbyist, and whatever level of military service you may have, apparently never having fired a shot in anger.

You know what? An artillery shell, or the shell from one of the old naval vessels' 17 or 19 inch guns makes the AK round look like a airgun pellet. The biggest naval guns fired something about half the weight of a Volkswagen. None of which would make their .50 caliber machine gun rounds 'feeble.'

Anyone who would contend that a .50 cal isn't ... at the most ... relatively feeble in comparison to an artillery shell is a moron.